By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
SC: No automatic resignation for electric coop officials
who run in national and local elections
The Supreme Court was asked to review a decision from the Court of Appeals (CA) regarding the constitutionality of Section 2 of Memorandum No. 2012-016, issued by the National Electrification Administration (NEA). This memorandum contained guidelines for the candidacy of Electric Cooperative (EC) officials and employees in the 2013 National and Local Elections. Section 2 of the memorandum stated that EC officials who filed their Certificates of Candidacy would be considered automatically resigned, effective at the beginning of the campaign period.
Oscar C. Borja and Venancio B. Regulado, who were incumbent members of the Board of Directors of Camarines Sur Electric Cooperative II (CASURECO II), filed a Petition seeking to declare Section 2 of Memorandum No. 2012-016 unconstitutional. Borja was an elected director with a term expiring in October 2014, and Regulado’s term was set to expire in December 2013. Borja filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor of Bombon, Camarines Sur, while Regulado ran for municipal councilor of Canaman in the May 2013 elections. The respondents argued that the memorandum contravened election laws and the will of the electorate. NEA countered that the Petition was premature because Borja and Regulado had not exhausted administrative remedies and failed to prove they would suffer grave and irreparable injury. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted a preliminary injunction only for Borja. The RTC struck down Section 2 of the memorandum, citing that it expanded what was provided under the law and was sourced from provisions already declared void in Quinto v. COMELEC.
The CA initially dismissed the case as moot and academic because Borja’s term had expired. However, the CA also addressed the constitutionality of the memorandum, noting that Presidential Decree No. 269, the NEA’s charter, only disqualifies “elective officers of the government, except barrio captains and councilors” from becoming officers or directors of cooperatives. The CA found that Section 2 of the memorandum effectively amended an act of Congress and was, therefore, invalid. NEA sought reconsideration, which was denied, leading to the present Petition.
The issues before the Supreme Court were whether the CA erred in decreeing the case as moot and academic, in ruling that Section 2 of Memorandum No. 2012-016 contravened the NEA’s charter, and in not dismissing the case on procedural grounds. The Court noted that the case was indeed moot and academic, as the 2013 elections had concluded and Borja and Regulado were no longer members of the Board of CASURECO II. However, the Court recognized an exception to the mootness principle because the issues were capable of repetition yet evading review.
The Supreme Court ruled that Memorandum No. 2012-016 was invalid. The Court held that NEA, as an administrative agency, could not amend an act of Congress through its own issuances. The Court clarified that electric cooperatives are private entities, not government agencies or government-owned or controlled corporations, and their officers are private individuals. Therefore, the “ipso facto resignation” rule under the Omnibus Election Code does not apply to them. Furthermore, the Court found that NEA’s charter does not authorize the agency to deem officers of electric cooperatives resigned upon filing certificates of candidacy. The Court emphasized that Congress did not include a provision mandating the automatic resignation of candidates in the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 10531. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, finding that NEA exceeded its authority by expanding Presidential Decree No. 269.d (National Electrification Administration v. Borja, G.R. No. 232581, (13 November 2024), digested using NotebookLM by Google)